The pursuit of clarity is still in progress. There are many views and opinions here and not a lot of consensus. Your quest is a noble cause which I hope others will contribute to. It is the weekend and there may be Folgezettel weariness. I am sure the conversation will pick-heat back up.

There are two aspects which are overseen here (which I also mention in my talk):

A Folgezettel or a note sequence was not primary used by Luhmann because of physical limitations of small paper where to write notes on. Writing very short notes is a technique itself.

A manual link or reference between two notes is, technically and regarding the context, something different than continuing an idea via Folgezettel (note sequences).

In his first bullet he equates a Folgezettel as singular to a sequence of notes. Now, this is really worse than the worst fastlish and the guy holds supposedly a PhD in the humanities but can't be arsed to write proper blogs. Oh, well.

Then, in the second bullet he uses Folgezettel as plural for the sum of all Zettel linked via Folgezettel IDs. He referes to the technique as such. Then he clarifies that by offering a "note sequences" in round brackets.

I think what happened here is that he just transliterates Folgezettel singular with "note sequence." The preceding "A" is classic sfastlish. In typical German manner he juxtaposes it to the other "A" that commences the second bullet:

"Ein…"

"Ein… …hingegen…"

I am still confused. His first bullet reads as if with Folgezettel he refers to a slip of that type, but then in the second bullet that seems to be not the case again.

It might help to not think of a Folgezettel as a type of Zettel or slip. But instead, think of a Folgezettel as a type of link or connection between Zettels. They are UID's, unique identifiers, that can be used as for direct linking as in the second bullet and ordering as in the first bullet. The difference they have over DateTime UID's is they provide a different more deliberate manually created sequencing. DateTime provides chronological sequencing and can be used for direct linking that just happens without a lot of deliberation by assigning the DateTime to the Zettel.

I am still trying to understand them. That's what I think I know about them so far.

I would like to find out if such an intention existed and if available to follow her. To use that as a basis to establish common vocabulary would be the right thing to do, in my mind. But that's just me.

It also would be quite cool to find out, if one can even understand the mutterings of some of those active in the field.

Luhmann did not mention the term in his essay. So, the answer to your question of your initial post is "No. Nobody can define you the term in the sense of Luhmann" (Perhaps, he used the term in an interview? But then we could argue if he had a clear definition)

The only hope for an "official" definition is in his own Zettelkasten, as far as I know.

But Lüdecke advertises "Zettelkasten according to Luhmann" which it is clearly not. You would at least hack according to the way of Seng to make it so. And even then it's still minorly different, as Seng clearly puts it.

@Perikles said: I settled on a Luhmanisch numbering scheme which allows for Folgezettel, it turned out, those are the feature that make me love and win the most out of my Zettelkasten.

@Perikles would you consider providing examples of how you use sequencing as a numbering scheme? I ask because I am interested in how it fits into the toolset we have available for interacting with our Zettelkasten. My questions would be along the lines of:

What does your sequencing look like?

Where do you include the sequencing number in the title, in the beginning, at the end, inside the note?

Do you use DateTime UID's as well?

What problems did taking this approach solve for you?

What do see as the advantages and limitations of your approach?

Then, of course, your view of how it compares to other approaches to sequencing?

Now that I ask this maybe you might open a separate discussion with your presentation and details? I think I would greatly benefit from your insight and experience.

In the meantime, I am going to track down what the Luhmanisch numbering scheme is all about.

Technically, a Folgezettel (the "1a" to the "1") would be best translated as parenthesis Zettel or something a long the line. The description of in the article goes more a long the line that the 1a to the 1 is more of a dependent clause to a main clause.

One could develop a theory on his exeptionally bad writing style: With his Zettelkasten he didn't got into the habit of putting the most important parts of his sentences into the main clause but didn't discriminate main and depended clauses.

I tried out several things. At one point I had a A5-PDF based Zettelkasten, because that would allow for drawings in conjunction with text, but it didn't really work. I used org-mode and also Markdown. But these formats went on my nerves after a while. Suddenly you can't use a "#" or a "*" or something, without getting a bad conscience.

But I settled on HTML, having a local website basically. You know, the web, the world's Zettelkasten. I figured, it's what it came to on this planet, why not just use that stuff?

If I ever wanted to develop software for my ZK, I'd have all web technologies at my disposal. I also love that I am browsing my Zettels in my web browser.

Yeah, I use the scheme Luhmann invented. Regarding the Zettelkasten-fu I wanted note sequences and in terms of encoding I couldn't find anything that would top Luhmann's scheme. I tried out several ones (I still have a backlog of several old Zettelkästen… oh, oh, oh…)

The filenames of my .html or image files are all beginning with the Luhmann number and then a "slug" derived from the title. I try to keep them CLI and script friendly. So underscores for spaces and so on. (Although this grinds my Macintsoh DNA, but you can't have everything in life…)

I don't use UIDs, the filenames are UIDs. How could they not?

Several other posters have mentioned their (past) use of Douglas Barone's FSIM methodology. I was there, too. @ctietze@John

What I kept from that phase is the "low-tech" notion and to keep everything file-system based. So, my Zettelkasten is easily browsable from both the Finder with Quick Look and the shell.

Also, in that discussion was mentioned the importance of fast filing. This is of less importance with a Zettelkasten, but I still like this "optimization for laziness" as a principle. Here is were the note sequencing shines:

I am forced to make up my mind, where to put the Zettel. Which in turn clarifies the boundaries of the Zettel contents-wise. It becomes clear very fast, when a Zettel is finished.

The Luhmann-ID does the linking, no extra work required.

The Luhmann-ID does the structure Zettel, no extra work required.

Navigating the "Luhmann-tree" does work and is fun. I will probably code a small CLI tool for it, remains to be seen. I don't know if I gained some "insight" doing so that I wouldn't have discovered if I used structure notes exclusively.

So. My Zettelkasten is still under 1k Zettel, so I cannot speak to some of your questions, not really. My hunch is, when you are around 3k Zettels you are "there" and can say something.

Everything under 500 Zettel? Should work with any scheme, it's just a bunch of files with stuff. You will find something if you'll grep it…

At this point I can say this, though, the main point of all the stuff that @sfast drove home here, avoiding the collectors fallacy by writing Zettel instead of copying a pile, that is where the whole thing already payed off for me. My head feels better for it.

Bravo. I love how you have rolled your own. I also see and hear your enthusiasm for what you have done. Very exciting. Low tech but high usability and flexibility. I also like how you took what you had available and built what you needed. Conventions. By being clever and following conventions people can do interesting and amazing things. Your set up clearly shows that as well and ingenuity.

You have helped me validate and understand that there are ways that "sequencing as you go" can be of great use and benefit. This and your LISP explanation in the other discussion was quite beautiful.

In my previous life, as a developer, I generally found that when you roll your own approach, there is a tendency and often a need to fiddle and tinker. In some cases, the rate of fiddling and tinkering exceeds the rate of using. Have you found that to be true with your approach? Have you reach the set it, forget it, and just use it point?

Thank you very much for answering my request.

@pseudoevagrius said elsewhere in the forum: "This is such intellectually nourishing community."